Where would you stand?

In National Review, Jonah Goldberg penned a line that really hit me. He was writing about the democrat party brand, but by way of an example of juxtaposing principles he said, "Does anyone believe that progressives will remain so dogmatically pro-choice the day homosexuality can be prevented in utero?" And I got to thinking... Given the argument is that homosexuality is an inborn state, not a choice. Do gay rights advocates run the risk of "pathologising" homosexuality and prompting a search for a "cure" they never wanted? What do you think?

funny I was thinking about this the other day (without having read the article)

current thinking on the origins of homosexuality ascribe it to a process that can readily be deemed as embryologically dysgenetic in etiology; the fact that it consistently appears on the Gaussian curve in populations across time and geography, and across different species does not establish it as being, in and of itself, pathologic; on the other hand, I can see how it could be deemed a pathology

I.Q, for example, also shows a similar distribution

couple that with the trait historically and disproportionately being ascribed to a large number of individuals being responsible for some of our greatest civilizational and cultural advances, and one begins to wonder

this latter thought becomes more intriguing when one reviews the clinical literature, imputing to gay men a different mode of processing sensory perceptions than either heterosexual men or women

so, it serves an adaptive function at the population level?

intriguing, but I suspect an answer would be premature without more evidence

Gold Member

By the time they have truly and absolutely found the "gay gene" (and I'm an agnostic in as much as I believe that culture and environment are strongly contributing factors), same-sex marriage and full civil equality will take much of the stigma of homosexuality away.

Besides, the only ones who'll be aborting "gay fetuses" <shudder reflexively at the concept> would be the same Evangelical Christians who condemn it as a perversion and who also believe that life begins at conception. I do not see them rushing to the abortionist any time soon.

Oh, and Goldberg's a pig who got where he is through sheer nepotism and naked hubris.

VerifiedGold Member

As to curing physical traits (for example, colour) this would all come under the topic of genetic engineering. Yes of course we will learn how to do this. Take an embryo and chop and change its DNA to remove what we do not want and add what we do. This will inevitably happen. First will come curing obvious disabling diseases but the techniques are exactly the same.

Whether homosexuals have a benefit to society is hard to say. Logically they must, or they would not exist. There is some suggestion that a mother can induce homosexuality in a child, which might possibly have benefits when a 'worker' rather than a 'breeder' is needed. If the mother is the one doing the influencing, then the whole thing needs to be seen from the perspective of whether a mother gets to have more successful breeder children because she can also generate some workers.

There is a separate argument that entrepreneurs. movers and shakers tend to be people who for one reason or another have become outsiders. Orphans, background of hardship, persecuted, that sort of things. People are motivated to change things when their own circumstances are bad. Being gay tends to make you an outsider, certainly makes you less likely to stay home and look after the kids.

Genetic modification is a risky subject. It could be argued that homosexuality is not a genetic defect there for modifying it breaks standards of ethics. Who determines weather or not it is ethical is then the question, and also weather or not those ethics over rule that of the parents. Then we wonder, if it is genetic, which parent passes it on and does that mean they have the gene as well? Would a couple care that one or the other carried the gay gene? After all of that the bottom line is... why stop there? There are many genotypica and phenotypic characteristics that people would like to change. Why not genetically alter your child so they will be taller, have fuller hair, be more well endowed, have larger breast, or be more fertile? More intelligent? At that point, is it potentially more cost effective just to harvest superior eggs and sperm from gene pools that are already naturally blessed with those characteristics? Why spend 1,000,000 to rebuild your genes, rather than spend 100,000 borrowing them from other people? Then there is the margin of error. For a good amount of time, which could be a decade to a century, before we have polished the science to yield the desired results consistently. When you modify genes you may have unintended results, rather than fixing your childs sexuality you could destroy it. No drive for men or women despite no observable physical defect, something was thrown off. An egg and a sperm from a beautiful smart, and perfect couple may not give you a child who is that way as well. After that period passes, why not just improve the genes completely? Make everything as good as we have the ability to, remove any imperfections the worthless non genetically refined parents had to give, and completely rebuild the family tree from that point on via science?

In National Review, Jonah Goldberg penned a line that really hit me. He was writing about the democrat party brand, but by way of an example of juxtaposing principles he said, "Does anyone believe that progressives will remain so dogmatically pro-choice the day homosexuality can be prevented in utero?" And I got to thinking... Given the argument is that homosexuality is an inborn state, not a choice. Do gay rights advocates run the risk of "pathologising" homosexuality and prompting a search for a "cure" they never wanted? What do you think?

VerifiedGold Member

I am NOT defective genetically or otherwise, and for anyone to suggest that I am is full of self-important shit. I have as much choice in being gay as a straight has in being straight. Those who perceive homosexuality as "defective" are confusing being different with being wrong.

To the "fuck off" crowd - you may not like the idea of bioengineering having an impact on gays, but it will impact everyone, we are not the only ones thinking about this. If you do nothing more than yell "bigot" and "nazi" and hide your heads, you will be unprepared for the debate should it ever come, and that would really suck.

To everybody else - This is still a hypothetical scenario, and shows no sign of rearing its ugly head any time soon, but in the interests of continuing the debate, where do you stand on designer babies or gene therapy? How much is too much and at what point do we no longer have a right to meddle?

Is it ok if we change predispositions for deadly diseases? Physical mutations such as dwarfism or ectrodactyly (lobster hands/feet)? What about more cosmetic things like male pattern balding or secondary sex characteristics? Skin color? Lupus? Should the 10 year old girl who grows up loving Twilight be able to make her babies translucent, pale little imitation vampires if she wants to?

And then the really heavy stuff; sexual orientation? Gender? Do we start adding genes like haulthat mentioned to try and make improvements? Where should it stop if it ever starts?